question on fundamental beliefs

Jesus and Lucifer are two different beings. One is the Son of God and actually IS God, and the other is a created being (ex-angel) who turned against God and wanted to be equal with Him, and he was cast out of heaven. They are not in any way related--contrary to the false belief of some heretics.

 

Phillip...

To begin, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to indicate Jesus was ever thrown out of Heaven. Jesus came voluntarily to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Being a fairly fundamental sort of man for the last sixty-odd years, I will state I have never heard any Bible believing church ever teach anything of the sort. There may be some radical – heretical – group that holds such, but no mainstream Protestant church teaches such a thing, let alone Baptists.
Nor do I find any instance where Lucifer was removed and Jesus inserted.

For the record, Erasmus died in 1536. The KJV was translated (finished) in 1611. Erasmus had no direct contact with the translation of the KJV.

The only occurrence of the word “Lucifer” is in (KJV) Isaiah 14:12: “How fallen thou art from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how thou art cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

The NET Bible translates this verse thusly: “Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations!” One notes the Hebrew word is translated by the meaning ‘shining one’ rather than by a name.

The word itself transliterated from the Hebrew is ‘hay-LAL’ and means ‘morning star’; not grammatically related to Venus or Mars or any other astronomical body. The word ‘Lucifer’ is from a Latin word meaning ‘light bearer’ – and no, it does appear in the Bible. It is the word in Latin that means the same – or nearly – as the Hebrew word. The Latin word ‘Lucifer’ can mean the planet Venus, but only in the sense that Venus is considered the morning star. I might add, Mars is also thought so.

The passage in Isaiah then goes on (Vv. 13 – 20) to relate the great sin of Lucifer, his pride.

This passage could also refer to the king of Babylon. Both theories have supporters. Traditionally, this passage is primarily held to refer to the Archangel Lucifer who was cast out of God’s presence. (At least in my experience, no doubt someone will argue the point.)

The word ‘Satan’ is found numerous times in the Old and New Testaments. The transliteration is ‘Sah-TAN’ and means (in most cases) ‘adversary’ in the sense of legal or philosophical opponent. In a few instances, Satan is described as physically interfering with the movements of angels sent by God.
Then to round this out, the word ‘Devil’ comes from the Greek word ‘dee-A-bah-las’, meaning false accuser or slanderer.

Now the problem is, how did these words – names – come to signify the same being?

Mostly from context. Satan is the one who opposes good men – Job, for instance – and provokes King David to conduct a census of the nation Israel, angering God. Later on, Satan is portrayed in Zechariah 3 standing before God in opposition to “Joshua the High Priest” (Joshua being the same name as Jesus). In the New Testament, Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness and so forth.

In Revelation, Satan is identified as the Devil (Revelation 12:9), so the relationship between the two names or titles is clear.

The passage identifying Lucifer in Isaiah sounds like a renegade angel being cast from Heaven. As I mentioned earlier, this is the traditional thinking on the subject. Forgive me, but I’m doing this in a hurry and another hopefully will fill in the gaps.

“My daughter is asking me that if the KJV is word for word preserved words…”

No. It is not. No translation is ‘word for word’; simply because most languages do not have exact equivalents in other languages. Nor is the sentence structure the same. So simply replacing Hebrew words with English words would result in a rather confused list of words. Translations have to be done at the very least sentence by sentence and sometimes, paragraph by paragraph, in order to accurately convey the original content and meaning.
By the way, the Hebrew word translated ‘word’, means not only a single unit of language (ink stain on paper) but the meaning of what is being said, the concept behind the symbols. Just as in English we say “What’s the word?” or “Pass the word”.

How do you give your daughter an answer? If you have a Bible Lexicon, have her look up the words – as I have demonstrated – so she knows she is getting the direct information. If you do not have one, the website www.blueletterbible.org has a built in Strong’s Lexicon one can use for free.

 

It's an argument I've heard from KJO sources, and possibly was used in the IFB church I grew up in.
They say it's a contradiction because one of Jesus' names is "the bright and morning star".
Satan being called "the morning star" is no more of a contradiction than Satan being called a "lion" (in all versions of the Bible that I know of), which is also one of Jesus' names.

Not all IFB churches are KJO, and not all KJO will necessarily use that argument.

 

Ain't language grand?

Philip, no apology needed. I sort of suspected the longer connection to Erasmus. I find many 'mis-apprehensions' or 'half-truths' which are NOT intended to mislead are the result of a 'half-story' where someone in chain of repetitions forgets a word or paragraph.

If your daughter now has a problem with her pastor, I did not mean to sow seeds of discontent. At the same time, the pastor may (I emphasis 'may') need to do a bit more study on the subject. Since I don't know him, I'll refrain from further comment.

I do however have a problem with the arguments presented by 'KJV only' enthusiasts. No point in going into all those right now, except all the arguments I can recall for the 'KJV only' position are based on some level of ignorance of the subject.

Which is not to say the KJV is not useful. It seems to have served well for about three hundred years. However, as the English language is modified by use, the language of 1611 English becomes more and more difficult for modern English speakers to comprehend. Of course, this makes an excellent reason to study Shakespeare's works - same era language.

I've met a number of self-proclaimed 'fundamentalists' who were in fact 'traditionalists'. They follow what their [Father, Mother, Grandparent, first Pastor, or other] told them, without bothering to check on the meaning of words or ancient traditions. And if the King James was good enough for Peter and Paul, well then...

For the record, I grew up Southern Baptist; briefly pastored a SoBap church and now attend a Berean Bible Fellowship Church. No SoBap church in the area - if one can believe that. I'm pretty conservative myself, but not as 'traditional' as some feel appropriate.

Keep studying. Alfred Whitney Griswold said "The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas." (Griswold was the President of Yale University at one time.) In this case I would alter it to "The only antidote for poor theology is accurate theology".

 

Philip - good to see you on the board again ... but sorry to hear you're still having the issues with your daughter.

 

Before Erasmus was born, the old 1380’s or 1390's Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate may have been the first English Bible to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" into English at Isaiah 14:12.

The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“

 

That pastor is misinformed and uninformed. All fundamental independent Baptist churches are not KJV-only.

Here in North Carolina, there are some Southern Baptist pastors that are KJV-only.

 

Huh? Who are these 'scholars'?



The Oxford English Dictionary notes s.v. Lucifer:

and cites line 366 of the Old English poem Christ & Satan:

 

Phillip, I may have mislead - not intentionally. I am not currently a member of a Fundamentalist Baptist Church, nor have I been. However, I have been in contact with several over the years. (Come to think of it, I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, either.)

However, I do believe in the authenticity, reliability and divine intent of the Bible. In that sense, I am a fundamentalist. I don't always take a 'traditionalist' view of things, but where I differ from traditional views, I do so on the basis of Scripture.

I shall be happy to shed any light I can. And if someone sees me commit an error in the process, I probably need to know about it.

 

I currently identify as a mix of Southern baptist and non-denominational, but I was raised in an IFB church and family.

 

Quest, I grew up and spent most of my life as a SoBap. I now attend a Berean Bible Fellowship church - no SoBaps in the area.

The only serious difference is how this congregation spends money on missions and organized with a board of deacons who serve 'terms'. Doctrinally, not enough to bother.

 

Phillip,

I grew up SB, and served in a number of SB churches.

I withdrew from the SBC because of the issues that I could no longer align with the Scriptures - but that is a whole other thread.

I spent many, many decades in the IFB churches.

Unfortunately, some very wrong teaching moved some of the KJV from preferred to only, and some have used the issue as divisive. In my opinion, it is merely another distraction issue that can be used by satanic influence to cause hurt, but can also be used to further the truth of the Gospel by believers.

The vast majority of IFB churches are not KJV only - most may be preferred, but like one preacher said, "If the home only has a catholic bible, I will take that to lead them to Christ."

This is my opinion only, so take it for what it is worth.

I read that you are in a small town.

Make friends with your daughter's pastor as a fellow believer. Not saying join the church, but do not go a week without purposely visiting with him. Don't make it over Scripture - his antennae will already be set to that frequency.

Pepper your speaking with Scriptures using "Phillip3" words - for instance the "KJV" says "All have sinned." Phillip3 can say, "Well preacher, just as the Scriptures state, everybody in the whole world has sinned, haven't they."

Here is what your intent is.

First, you don't want room for your daughter to be estranged by choosing between the pastor and you.

Second, you want to let the pastor in on a whole lot of information by tuning his antennae slowly. By engaging the pastor in small talk while you pepper your speaking with accurate but colloquial paraphrases, it will gradually (hopefully anyway) lower the typical heat that a discussion over "versions" can bring.

After about a year, introduce him to why there are different translations - some gravitating to readability using the intended thoughts of the original as compared to those versions with the intent to render a more word for word literal translation.

HERE is a simple but accurate chart you may want to slip into his hands.

At no time become confrontational, smile through any barbed tipped remarks, and just remain friendly. Remember, the pastor is a brother in Christ, wrong perhaps, but nevertheless a relative.

You may never succeed, but then you will be better equipped to pick up the pieces if things fall apart for both your daughter and/or this pastor. Because you will not be alienated by either.

To some, principle and conviction are blurred. They become so enthused about some principle(s) that becomes the dividing point, rather than convictions.

Convictions are what should be lines of demarcation. For instance: why did the Seventh-day Adventists withdraw from Baptists? Because they saw a level of preference become a conviction. Why did the Church of Christ withdraw from Baptists? Again, because they saw a level of preference become a conviction. (Both were once Baptists)

Apparently, the daughter's pastor has blurred the principle into that of a conviction.

On a side note:

One of the elements of the early KJV only argument was that of the "dead" languages- modern Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic... is supposedly not that of the which the Scriptures were originally written.

Now I am not suggesting that thinking is right or wrong. Only to say, if the KJV is "the only" then it follows that the English language versions used must be that of the 1611 in which and makes for difficult reading - maybe that is why the pastor has a reading problem.

Look at this link to see what I mean: On the left is the original, on the right is a "respelling" to help with the reading.

Note the first use of "Scofield" notes are on the left. of the original page.

 

WOW - that was an excellent post.

Hope all is well with you,
BiR